Kairve Anil Trivedi Erstwhile Rp Of ... vs State Bank Of India & Ors

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 393 of 2026 & I.A. No. 1383, 1505 of 2026 IN THE MATTER OF: Kairav Anil Trivedi Erstwhile RP of Nanda Takwani ...Appellant(s)

Versus State Bank of India & Anr ...Respondent(s)

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Kairav Anil Trivedi in person

For Respondents : Ms. Raveena Rai, Advocate for R1

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

12.03.2026 I.A. No. 1505 of 2026 This is an Application praying for

Condonation of 10 days delay in filing the Appeal.

We find sufficient cause shown in the Application for Condonation of

delay.

Delay condoned.

I.A. No 1383 of 2026 This is an Application praying for Condonation of 45

days delay in refiling the Appeal.

Applicant in Paragraph 4 of the Application has given the reason for

refilling delay. Sufficient cause has been shown.

Refiling delay condoned.

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 393 of 2026 This Appeal has been filed against

the order dated 10/11/2025, which is as follows :

1. "This application has been filed by the erstwhile RP of Smt. Nanda Takawane, personal guarantor of M/s. Siddheshwar Industries Pvt.

Ltd seeking rectification .of order: dated 08.10.2025 in. LA. 4659/2025. on the ground that an error has occurred in the said order and the order should be rectified to include that: "immediate payment be released by SBI to the applicant Erstwhile RP and PCA as per the bills raised by the PR/ PCA in terms of the contractual obligation dt. 06.01.2022 and the proof of these payments be confirmed before the next date of hearing on 21 .11.2025."

2. Perused order dated 08.10.2025, which is reproduced below: -

Issue Notice.

Ld. Counsel for the Respondent accepts notice and submits that the complete set of copy of the application be provided to him. Applicant is directed to provide a soft copy of the application to Ld. Counsel's at email id Vishnu.shriram@khaitanco.com

Reply be filed within 2 weeks.

List this matter for further consideration on 21.11.2025.

3. We find that there is no typographical error or any other obvious error apparent from the record in the impugned order. Therefore, we are unable to carry out the rectification sought in this application

4. Accordingly, IA(I.B.C)/5072(MB)/2025 is dismissed."

The Appellant, appearing in person, submits that order which was

pronounced in the open by the court was different and that is why, the

Applicant has filed the Application for rectification of the order, which has been

rejected.

Ld. Counsel for Respondent submits that Application is still pending and

have been fixed for 27/03/2026.

2 of 3 Heard Counsel for the Parties and perused the records. The order which

was passed and uploaded has been quoted in Paragraph 2 of the impugned

order.

The submission of the Appellant in the Application that order need to be

rectified has not been accepted and court has observed that there is no

typographical or any other obvious error in the order.

We are of the view that this Appellate court cannot exercise any

jurisdiction in accepting the prayer of the Appellant and by allowing the

Application, we do not find any error in the order of IA(I.B.C)/5072/MB/2025.

The Appeal is dismissed.

However, it shall be open for the Appellant to press his application, which

is pending consideration to the Adjudicating Authority, in accordance with law.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Prerana/md

3 of 3